We have been talking about the necessity of attempting to
understand the culture of the people with whom we will be interacting and its
importance in ensuring cultural sensitivity. I however argue that the very
culture that we’re trying to contextualize and dissect to make it understandable
to the Western gaze can be and often is a propagation of hierarchal power
structures. In order for NGOs, student volunteers and academics to gain this
oft-touted cultural sensitivity as a means of respect and power equalizer, someone
needs to observe and write down those cultural mores. Who authors the customs
of the Malawians or the filial expectations of Chinese immigrants in Chicago?
They are the academics and other privileged and Western players of
developmental discourse.
Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie declares that the ability to create
certain narratives imbues power to the creator and this insight is especially
pertinent to the creation of a cultural identity as determined and propagated
by not the indigenous populations but by outsiders on a quest for social comprehension.
As a researcher, they have the ability to observe and then twist what they see
to fit their political, religious or cultural narrative. Their viewpoints are
then legitimized by their status as researchers and the system within which
they operate. They are then able to disseminate their perspective on another
group’s social identity while the indigenous populations are simply relegated to
the role of the observed. The narrative is thus dominated by a single story.
Zhou Daguan journeyed to Cambodia in the 13th century on an
exploratory mission to compile data on the Cambodians and he came back to China
with salacious details about child brides and sexually rapacious women. His
single story of Cambodian society dominates to this day because not only was it
not contested but it was able to gain a wider audience than other narratives because
of his social status. Just as Zhou Daguan was able to create one story about
the Cambodians, researcher today are also creating a single story about the
people they study, albeit with kinder intentions.
Thank you for your insight into the matter of singular narratives and their violence of shaping one's thoughts. I would like to comment on a few points you made. First, you mentioned that researchers may contribute to forming a single story of a group. I see such possibility but I also see the possibility that the researchers may help form plural stories of a group. In fact, where do we usually obtain information about the "culture" of a nation, a community, an ethnicity and maybe simply a small group of people? It is usually through the reports of mass media, politicians' descriptions and the first few images you see on the Internet. These ideas and images circulate in our communities through pep-talks and short conversations, eventually forming stereotypes. Researchers, meanwhile, actually meet the people in person and interact with them. I guess it depends on what kind of researchers we are talking about but generally research in the poor countries is conducted by anthropologists. These academics do not just spend two weeks and generalize on the behaviors of the people. They live with the people they study for a long time to sometimes be in fact accepted as part of the group. I think here for this reason the researchers will have more than one single story to tell.
ReplyDeleteBut then, another question is on the researchers' forming any kind of stories itself. Why should an outsider tell a story of these people? Can't the people of Malawi tell the stories themselves? It is absolutely possible but it is economically difficult. However, I think we can talk more about this matter.
Maybe this is me secluded off in the Berkeley bubble, but I feel that the ideas of cultural differences and cultural awareness are better addressed and identified in research. Reflecting on my experiences here in Psychology, Anthropology and Public Health, I feel that it's been instilled in me to never take one study or article to heart and to note that there are always differences that haven't been accounted for. That research is heavily dependent on focus groups and semi-structured interviews which give some leeway to bring out multiple stories from a community or certain demographic. Keeping this in mind, I agree with Joseph that the single stories that we fall prey to are a by-product of the media. News reports, TV blurbs and headlines highlight and focus on cultural differences, often framing them in a way that either seems threatening to our way of life or inflates our sense of self as Americans. But I view your point as interesting and is one to keep as a mental bookmark when assessing the validity of research.
ReplyDelete